Talk:Sam (Animal)
Dog Attacking is normal behaviour Just for everyone to know, it's normal behaviour for a normal dog to attack anyone if you steal or grab away their food. It may be a good trivia to add to the article. Dogs usually get extremely angry if you act them to give food and then take it away (or if you try to grab themselves away from the food is as dangerous as well). So don't start posting that it's a sudden attack of a virus or whatnot xD --'JorisCeoen' 22:42, December 17, 2013 (UTC) To whoever added that the way Sam lunged at Clem was abnormal, maybe Sam hasn't had anything to eat in days, and was REALLY hungry. Just a hunch. J.Vonte (talk) 05:03, December 18, 2013 (UTC) Sam had guilt because he was hungry and thirsty is not normal behavior of any dog step even gave me worth his death becuase i was suffering from it free of this suffering.Clementine should hold on its part and give others the poor animal.It was re good especially when moving tail so they give him food when he was driving I started to cry and that free him of his suffering. Food aggression is one thing. Even if a dog is starving, the way he lunged was abnormal given his previous behavior. If he was truly starving, he would have been completely fixated on the food. For him to be all over her arm like that, he would have had to have felt like Clem was a physical threat. By that point it was clear he did not. Just a bit inaccurate.DarkLordRedeemed (talk) 06:30, December 19, 2013 (UTC) Haven't you guys ever been taught not to take food out of a stray dog's mouth? This behavior is very typical. In some cases, stray dogs have even killed humans over food. So yes, Sam's behavior is very normal for a stray dog. He even growls at first, but since Clem continues, that's what made him snap. Considering the only people he'd seen for months, possibly years, were walkers that tried to eat him, it makes sense he'd feel threatened. Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt (talk) 06:47, December 19, 2013 (UTC) You're not understanding how it's flawed. Sam is clearly not feral. That was established early on by his behavior. If Sam was going to attack the way he did, he would have done that much sooner. That is not how food aggression works. With food aggression, the animal is entirely fixated on the food. They will snap, but they will not drop their attention from the food long enough to lock onto her arm the way he did.DarkLordRedeemed (talk) 07:22, December 19, 2013 (UTC) Sam's domestication is the only reason he didn't attack her on sight, but he's been alone for months. By this point, and with how hungry he'd be, it makes sense he'd attack over food if Clementine aggressed him. She displayed weakness and tried to take his food. Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt (talk) 07:24, December 19, 2013 (UTC) If he was that starving, that's even more evidence that he would have been fixated on the food. If you've worked with food aggression, you see that. When you test an incoming dog for food aggression, you feed him and prod him with a stick that has a hand on it. They snap at the hand and quickly go back to the food. It wouldn't work if they frequently went all out, especially when not displaying that behavior previously.DarkLordRedeemed (talk) 07:29, December 19, 2013 (UTC) A normal dog doesn't like it when you mess with them when they're eating, it's an instinct and thats why people often get bit because they become a little agressive to protect their food. Totally not the dog's fault. Instinct. But throw in a dog that's probably starving to death and sees food. Clementine then drops it near the starving dog and the dog gets excited to eat. Clem then removes the food from the dog as she accidentially dropped it. The dog doesnt know any better and is again, starving. So it reacts in instinct to attack and protect it's food. Again, totally not it's fault. The dog was friendly and even played Frisbee with Clem. I dont see the dog as anything but a normal dog, except starving... 1whoknocks (talk) 22:01, December 19, 2013 (UTC) I did not create the original edit, but I changed it back to that. You are only repeating what other people have said. You aren't understanding where it is flawed. It is entirely instinctual for a dog to protect his food, but the nature of the attack was unusual given the circumstances. I've worked with dogs for years. You understand that they attack, you do not understand how they typically attack.DarkLordRedeemed (talk) 00:46, December 20, 2013 (UTC) I've worked with dogs too and one of my good friends is a vet. He agreed with me that the dog lunged in a desperate bid to protect his food as he saw Clementine as taking it away. Don't pressume to tell me what I know and don't know. My own dog lunged before when food was taken away, and he wasn't starving like this one. 1whoknocks (talk) 17:00, December 20, 2013 (UTC) Your good friend is a vet. I work closely with several veterinarians who I consider to be friends. It doesn't matter. The lunging was a plot device. The method of attack given food aggression was unusual. Period. Stop changing it. Your edit has no place in a wiki. "Not that surprising" is not informative or interesting. I don't need to "presume" anything. It's pretty apparent.DarkLordRedeemed (talk) 17:38, December 20, 2013 (UTC) His edit has a place here. You are new, don't go around telling older users they aren't allowed to contribute to a wiki (which is a site everyone can edit). Sam growled at Clem when he first met her, and seeing his playful nature later, that was a sign of hunger and aggression. If you give a starving dog food, then snatch it away, especially if you are a stranger, it is not surprising in the least to have it lunge at you and attack. It would be a different case entirely if the dog was not starving, or if he knew Clem longer than 2 minutes. Your constant undoing edits with no summary is not helping this situation at all, and you are going to get this page locked for everyone for this stupid edit war. --''InsaneHippo'' (T|B| ) The fact that you're stalking a page, reverting edits that are correct and are fighting a topic that is so trivial, convinces me to stop arguing with you because my time would probably be better spent arguing with a brick wall. Get over yourself man and knock it off. 1whoknocks (talk) 17:45, December 20, 2013 (UTC) I know this is an old arguement, but you guys really do not know a whole lot about dogs. While yes it could definitly have bit her out of food aggresion, there's simply no reason in the first place for him to have been hungry. Don't forget that dogs are not above eating carrion, especially if he's starving, so the zombies would have been a walking buffet for him. Not to mention, he is a dog who is much smarter and stronger than your average zombie, so taking one down wouldn't be a problem. 23:45, February 26, 2014 (UTC)galaxygraber Its really really cheap In my personal opinion its just a cheap trick how to get someone crying. I think Telltale fucked it up with that, I simply wanted a companion who follows and defends his adoptive owner, not a monster who tries to kill Clementine! I think if they could at least let the dog be alive during the game and then get killed by a zombie or a scavenger it would be a lot more interesting (because its the first dog in the game) and it wouldnt feel so cheap (and rushed). WARNING! This is my personal opinion if you dont like it then please do NOT respond to it! ( 21:50, December 19, 2013 (UTC)) Personally, I loved how they handled that section of the game; it added a great sense of realism and strayed from following a cliche dog companion. Above that, because it didn't follow a cliche, it was unexpected and a great twist to the plot - one of those twists that makes you realise how obvious it was only after if happens - as realistically, animals would fight to survive. I just think it would have been far too cliche to have the dog stay as a companion and then (predictively) die from a walker later in the season. If they did that, I would give a lower rating than I did. ( 22:00, December 19, 2013 (UTC)) Sam & Max are out of line as a subject, or something? Having my edit removed nine minutes after the fact with no comment, clear reason of anything, then an Admin removing what was there before I edited (again with no remark whatsoever) makes me wonder. Is it off-bounds somehow? Some clarification would be greatly appreciated. LuisDantas (talk) 19:40, December 19, 2013 (UTC) The tree walker The walker that is tied in a tree can't be Sam's owner? He has the same cloth as the guy from Sam's family picture wears. DraculaTepes14 (talk) 21:19, January 11, 2014 (UTC) It's possible, but not definite. However, I noticed just now that as well as having matching shirts, the walker also wears jeans and bears the red sweatband on an arm that appears in the family picture. So it might actually be quite likely, but we'd have to analyse more before we can definitely say they are the same. InspectorJ (talk) 21:24, January 11, 2014 (UTC) Change name to Sam (Dog) The name of the article shouls be Sam (Dog). I think I know what a dog is. Mmwa (talk) 19:43, February 16, 2015 (UTC) Such a compelling argument on why the page should be re-named, no. TPShadowDragon[[User talk:Riley Heligo| Born into flame!]] 19:50, February 16, 2015 (UTC)